Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Shipley

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, in this group Amendment 2 in my name returns to an issue that we debated in Committee. Noble Lords who were present on that occasion will recall the debate and I will refer to it again in a moment, but I think it is useful to return to it, because it touches upon the broader question of the relationship between the laying of a statement of the levelling-up missions and parliamentary scrutiny of that—or indeed, parliamentary scrutiny of subsequent reports.

We just touched on the timing of all of these. For the benefit of the House, as it happened, I was looking at the timing of the reports and the statements. We are in a position now where we are 17 months on from the Government having published their levelling up White Paper. Technically speaking of course, when this Bill is enacted, the mission periods for the levelling-up missions will restart, since under the Bill as it stands the mission period for the levelling-up missions cannot be dated back to before the enactment of the Bill itself. As far as I can see, we are going to have a new statement of levelling-up missions at that point, and the mission period will clearly run to 2030, since all the levelling-up missions in the White Paper run to 2030. That satisfies the provision that it cannot be less than five years for the mission period.

My amendment relates to what Parliament does when it receives a statement of levelling-up missions. Under the Bill, strictly speaking, it does nothing; it waits until it receives a report. Let us imagine what happens to this Parliament in relation to such a report. The mission period starts two months after enactment—let us say, for the sake of argument, that it will be January 2024. The mission period could be delayed up to a month later under the provisions of Clause 1, so that gets us to February 2024. The 12-month report, therefore, takes us to February 2025, and the report could be received up to 120 days after the end of that 12-month period. So, the first report on levelling-up missions is already certain to take place after this Parliament has been dissolved and is likely not to be received by Parliament until the middle of 2025. That is the first point at which a report is likely to be received.

There is an interesting amendment in this group—Amendment 12, if I recall correctly—which relates to evaluating the levelling-up missions, in relation not only to Ministers’ assessments but to the assessments of the independent advisory council. We discussed the independent advisory council previously; we do not have its view formally on the levelling-up missions and progress. However, as we discussed previously, I think there is some merit in that amendment and that the independent advisory council should provide detail on the report.

The point of my amendment is to say that, when a statement of levelling-up missions is laid before Parliament, Parliament should have an opportunity to debate it if it feels strongly about it. That is not quite what my amendment says. I have adapted a legislative provision which Ministers introduced into the Procurement Bill—which is now in the other place—that, if the national procurement policy statement is the subject of a Motion critical of it within 40 days, Ministers would withdraw that statement. My amendment shortens the time period ever so slightly, the implication being that if Parliament has a problem with a statement of levelling- up missions, the time to do something about it would be when the statement is laid, not to wait what could be 15 months to look at the first report and express reservations about that.

From Ministers’ point of view, my noble friend Lord Howe, in the debate we had in Committee on 20 February—time has passed, has it not?—said that

“it would be extremely unlikely for any government to ignore the view of either House of Parliament if that view had been expressed in the form of a Motion that had been widely supported”.—[Official Report, 20/2/23; col. 1467.]

My difficulty is this: as a former Leader of the House of Commons, I can see that if the Opposition had a problem with a statement of levelling-up missions in the other place, the likelihood is that they would have time within 30 working days to lay a Motion and to debate it. It is not so straightforward here, and there are no formal processes associated with a statement of levelling-up missions. If we were to include my amendment, we would create an expectation that, if such a Motion were tabled, it should be debated within a short period of time.

That is necessary because the statement of levelling-up missions is, of itself, of importance. It is a major statement of government policy. I am assuming that the statement that will be laid, potentially at the end of this year, will be the same as the statement of levelling-up missions published on 2 February 2022. It may not be—there is nothing in the Bill that requires it to be.

My point is that what is in the statement of levelling-up missions is the Government’s responsibility. I am afraid that I do not agree with the other amendments in this group and the next which try to substitute the view of Parliament about what government policy should be for the view of the Government themselves. The statement of levelling-up missions is a central statement about government policy on the reduction of geographic and other disparities across the nation, and it is for government to set out what they are. My principle is very straightforward: government propose; Parliament disposes. By what mechanism will Parliament dispose of the statement of levelling-up missions? At the moment, the implication is that it does not do anything about them; it just waits for a report, which may be some time off in the future.

Amendment 2 is very simple. It says that when the Government publish a statement, Parliament should have an opportunity—not a requirement, but an opportunity—to look at the statement and, if it objects, table a Motion and express its disapproval, which is exactly what my noble friend Lord Howe said. However, we have to create an opportunity for that to happen. If such a Motion were supported by either House, it would be right for Ministers to withdraw the statement and revise it. The amendment does not tell them what to put into their statement; they could carry on with the same statement and try to reintroduce it with the same missions, or they could adapt the missions. However, I do not think it correct that they should proceed without any reference to Parliament or any opportunity for Parliament to express a view about the statement of levelling-up missions.

I hope my amendment is supported. I have sympathy with Amendment 12, on the independent advisory council, but I do not agree with amendments that are trying to substitute the view of this House at this moment for the Government’s view on what the policy on levelling up should be. That is for government to do. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment 2.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 6 in my name, but first, I point out that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a number of important issues of process and timing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, because Parliament will have to work around them. The noble Lord pointed out that that it is now 17 months since the White Paper was published and that the way things are, with a general election pending, we are likely to hear more about the levelling-up missions in 2025. As I understood it, he said that it would be useful if Parliament could debate the missions earlier, and he is right.

However, I do not agree with the noble Lord regarding my Amendment 6, on which he poured a little cold water. It is actually about indicators, not missions: it is about how you measure, through missions and metrics, how successful the Government have actually been in delivering on their objectives.

I remind the House as we start Report that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. My amendment would define the criteria that should be used to evaluate the success or otherwise of levelling-up policies across all government departments. I emphasise the obvious point that that levelling up is not just for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to pursue. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said in the previous group, we must tie funding to the levelling-up missions across Whitehall. By implication, that is fundamental, because all departments are supposed to be driving levelling up, so we need to be able to assess how successful they have been in doing that.

My amendment states:

“A statement of levelling-up missions must include an assessment of geographical disparities in the United Kingdom, broken down by local authority and by postcode area and council ward”.


Let me be clear: “postcode area” means the first three or four digits of a postcode, not the second half. Otherwise, I do not see how, if we talk only in terms of regions of England, we ensure that all parts of England are being considered for those outcomes. We have to cover urban, rural and coastal areas—all parts of England. We therefore have to have systems that will produce the evidence we need.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Shipley

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I nearly lost that chance, having sat here for several days waiting for this. I agree with everything my noble friend Lord Young said on the amendments he and I have jointly tabled in this group, except for one word: he referred to his “chequered” career, but I would say “distinguished”. We will replace “chequered” with “distinguished”, but otherwise I agree with everything he said. That helps, because it means that I do not have to repeat the arguments he made.

I want to speak to Amendments 184A and 187A very briefly. I will also explain Amendment 185, which my noble friend did not dwell on, and say a word or two about Amendment 183—the lead amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—which he did refer to. As my noble friend said, the issue we are turning to now is the plan-led system. How local plans are to be made and what the relationship is to be between the local plan and the national development management policies are very important questions.

To paraphrase one of the key questions that arises out of this, which I think we need to understand now in order to address these issues in the Bill at a later stage, would the Government be kind enough to explain to what extent the provisions presently in the National Planning Policy Framework are going to be national development management policies in the future? They will then acquire a different status—although, I have to say, it is quite difficult in many cases for a local planning authority to proceed on the basis of operating with the guidance in the NPPF, because inspectors will look to the NPPF as a basis for the judgments they make on whether a plan is sound, and indeed whether determinations in themselves are sound on appeal. We may be looking at distinctions or differences between the NPPF and NDMP without there being that much of a difference between them. In practice, the legal differences are clear, and the extent to which the NPPF is going to be turned into NDMP and given that status is important, and we need to know that.

As my noble friend Lord Young said, the revised draft of the NPPF, which the Government have consulted on and have yet to tell us the final outcome of, states:

“Policies in local plans and spatial development strategies should be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years”.


My noble friend referred to the loophole or the issue here, which is that local planning authorities decide for themselves whether that review turns into an updated local plan. I give him and the House one very specific example, which is close to me. I should remind the House, as I have mentioned previously, of my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. East Cambridgeshire adopted a local plan on 21 April 2015, which covers the period up to 2031. In April 2020—five years later—the authority conducted a review and decided that it did not need to update the plan, save with respect to the housing supply numbers. So, it conducted a single-issue review.

I will not dwell on some of the issues, but I have various complaints about this. First, there is the idea that the housing number is unrelated to other issues in the plan—that the housing supply in the decade ahead is unrelated to issues of environmental concern or whatever. That seems to have been ignored by them. However, I make the point that the inspector, who conducted an examination in public in the latter part of last year, said that it was not in his remit at all to look at whether the plan should be updated or not, whether anything other than housing should be updated or not, and indeed whether the final date of the plan should be beyond 2031. Of course, what the local authority is planning to do in this case is to update its housing figures, but when it has done so, it will extend for only about six years rather than the 15 years that the NPPF would imply. Notwithstanding that, they got away with it. So I very much agree with my noble friend and hope that the Minister will think hard about how we might make sure that we have local plans.

However, our Amendments 184A and 187A go precisely to the issue of requiring local plans to be up to date. If they are not up to date, in our view it cannot be right that the same principles apply in terms of the compliance or otherwise of determinations made on planning applications if the local plan to which they relate is out of date. There must be a distinction. Our amendments simply add “up-to-date” in front of “development plan.” They do not say, “What’s the relationship between a planning application and a determination on that planning application in relation to a local plan that is no longer up to date?” We need to resolve that. I suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that Ministers should think about whether there is as yet something they can do to distinguish between the proper relationship between development plans and in this particular instance determinations of planning applications, which should be made according to an up to date local plan, and local plans that had been adopted but are now out of date. They need to address the question of whether they are proper material considerations but not necessarily determinative. That seems to be the right way to go.

Amendment 185, which is in my name, that of my noble friend, and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, relates to the question of a determination on a planning application and that it should be made in accordance with the local plan. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says in Section 38(6):

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.


It has said that since 2004, so there is considerable case law relating to this, and those working in the planning system have experience of working with that. They know that it means that, in making a determination on a planning application, local planning authorities have to weigh material considerations. However, courts pretty much do not second-guess the weight that planning officers and planning committees give to various considerations in considering an application. We have had nearly 20 years of that.

The Government have rewritten this bit and inserted the word “strongly”—

“unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise”.

That says to me that two things are going to happen. First, it is the Government’s intention to limit and restrict the circumstances in which decisions are made other than in accord with a local plan or with national development management policies. That means—which goes to the point that we have been debating in this group—that it reduces the role of the planning committee and the local planning authority, because they do not balance the weight any more. Most of the material considerations, almost by definition, will not be enough to indicate that they should do other than what would be demanded by the local plan and the NDMP.

The second thing that will inevitably result from this is that there will be a large amount of litigation, because the question of what “strongly” means in this context will be hard to determine. There will not be case law or precedent—a large number of decisions will not previously have been made. Where does “strongly” change the balance? How is that weight to be shifted? It is very unwise for the Government to be proceeding down this path. It would create a better balance across the Bill generally and we would be better off in many cases just to leave things as they are if they cannot demonstrate that there is a mischief to which this is the answer.

I will stop there, but I just want to refer to one other thing. I thought that Amendment 216, which is not in my name but in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, rather pointed to an issue. Schedule 7 on page 294, which is about plan making, would take out a rather curious few words where the Government say that local plans must not

“be inconsistent with or (in substance) repeat any national development management policy”.

I just have a question: what is the point of national development management policies if it is not essentially to write for local planning authorities large amounts of their local plan? If the local planning authority then puts that language into its local plan, does that mean it is repeating it or incorporating it? What does “repeat” mean in this context? I thought the whole point was that local plans would “repeat” national development management policies, yet we are being told in the legislation that that is not what they are to do. That is a genuine question to which I really do not know the answer, but I hope we can find out a bit more from my noble friend later.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name is on Amendment 191A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Thornhill, as is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It stipulates the process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a national development management policy, including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny based on processes set out in the Planning Act 2008, as amended, for national policy statements. It is an amendment to Clause 87.

Clause 87, which is a matter of only 20 or so lines, defines the meaning of “national development management policy” as

“a policy (however expressed) of the Secretary of State in relation to the development or use of land in England, or any part of England, which the Secretary of State by direction designates as a national development management policy.”

It then says that the Secretary of State can revoke a direction and modify a national development management policy. It goes on to say:

“Before making or revoking a direction … or modifying a national development management policy, the Secretary of State must ensure that such consultation with, and participation by, the public or any bodies or persons (if any) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate takes place.”


In planning terms, this is the most gross act of centralisation that I can recall from the various Bills we have had relating to planning policy.